That was the question.
The answer so simple: Because people still insist on believing in countries and borders, because nations are not seen as different cultures and richnesses but as groups serving to differentiate between “us” and “them”, because there is a concept like “things to kill and die for.” That’s why.
Because man is greedy, because there is “evil”, more or less, in his leaven, because he likes to reign, he wants to dominate. That’s why all wars in the world are.
Plus, there is something called property.
In “modern” western societies and most others as well, the foundation of property rests on exchange/barter or mostly being bought with a commodity called money, and by inheritance. If we have paid money to buy something we take it that it belongs to us/ we believe that that thing is “ours”. Luckily, the people we are in contact with in general share this view and we don’t have a conflict of concept.
However, according to an Indian, property is mostly a concept appertaining to use. If you have something in your house that you do not use, an Indian does not see any problem to take it to his household. The white man would accuse him with “theft” but his answer is ready: “You weren’t using it.” He reasons like this: “If somebody is not using something, it doesn’t belong to him; and anybody who needs it can get it.”
Thus, what he has done, does absolutely not go into the category of theft. Whereas in our society the same act is considered as theft; as a crime to be punished. When you see these two contradictory understandings you start doubting -or you should start doubting!-, you feel the need -if not, you should feel the need- to question your concepts like theft and property. This is one of the many benefits of travel too: makes one fine tune his beliefs and perceptions. Makes one question the things he has learnt until that day, things he believed were absolute and final truths; it makes one doubt. Yes, I might have the registry, it could be legally mine, but maybe what I don’t use does not actually belong to me.
Personally Ayşe was in favor of adopting the Indian’s perception of property. All along her life she had thought that things belonged to people who liked them more and would use them more. She had often taken off and given a necklace, a jumper etc. when somebody said “That’s nice.” If it didn’t have a special significance for her, she did not have any difficulty to say “Take it, it is yours.”
Especially if a piece is not in daily use, it had to go to somebody who would put it to better use. With this reasoning, she had given away more valuable things than simple jewellery and clothes, giving up her possessions. When a friend said he’d be buying a music set she said “Wait, I’ll give it to you.” Yes, she was listening to it once in a while but she knew her friend would be using it more often and value it more than her, that music meant more to him than her. Did somebody need a wardrobe, a couch, she said “If you want, get mine.” This way, things she had that had accumulated of their own accord in time slowly diminished. And as I got older, the number of things I felt a possession for in life dwindled.
Perhaps because she grew up in a family that couldn’t manage to be “us” she never felt she belonged anywhere. When she was left alone at a young age and had to learn to stand up on my own, singularity set in her. “Us” was a bit foreign to me. And perhaps for the same reason, foreigners were not that “foreign.”
There must also have been something wrong with the part of her brain that had the ability to sort people out by their nationalities. Hence, she went around in various geographies of the world, made friends from all kinds of nationalities without any judgement. Although I have always been proud of my culture and the wisdom of our ancestors in our proverbs, she never owned being Turkish, never put that definition on which I had no contribution, or as a matter of fact, no choice either, at the center of her identity.
Growing up among family fights had isolated her from the consciousness of society as well. She could compete with a 6 year old in being apolitic until she was 35. For example PKK… Ok, she had learnt from official declarations that it was a terrorist organization, they kill people, but “What for?”, that she had never thought of. Likewise, she had no idea which group it represented. Media and society could not indoctrinate that much in her. I could not come to the Kurdish part of the alphabet. Uneasiness and fear of Kurds, or hostility towards them had not been inoculated in me. Thus, Kurds were no different than any populace of the world. Classifying people according to their nationalities is already unknown… Some concepts, if they are not inseminated until a certain age, after that, you cannot espouse it much I guess.
As she did not have a concept of possession travelling the world, she did not have a concept of owning land. Thus, years ago when she heard that the Kurds wanted land, that they wanted to found their own country, she had said “So we give it to them” without a moment of hesitation.
The friend, trying to explain her, i.e. an ignorant child, the world of big people said “How can that be! Land is indivisible.”
“Why?” is my favorite question. She asked.
Her friend didn’t answer right away, it was as if he wanted her to find the answer myself. Eh, that didn’t take long. “Haaa!” said Ayşe two seconds later. Just like you do when you apprehend something all of a sudden…
“Of course there are places to visit, natural beauties there, we wouldn’t want to give those away.”
Now, thinking about this answer of hers she smiled on one side and was astonished on the other. Because now she was aware what a naive logic to make fun of this was for an adult. She still had trouble perceiving political concepts but now she had an idea how other people’s minds worked. At that time what I had said seemed so logical and true to me- that I was so sure it would be the same for everybody, you cannot imagine!
This could be the only explanation for saying “Land is indivisible.”
What else does somebody want land for?
You’ll want to go and visit that place… Eh, when we want to do that we wouldn’t want to have to deal with getting a visa, we’d want to go easily, that’s why we don’t want to give land away. Well, my mind only works that much. Whatever is in the dervish’s mind, that is his word. The girl’s mind works indexed to travelling, not possessing land.
“There are nice places to visit and see there, we wouldn’t want to give them away.”
Yes, she was now aware it was an odd logic. But wished everybody saw land as a place to wander over…
Or a place to be buried one day.
Hrant Dink, the Armenian journalist killed in daylight on a crowded street in Istanbul had said “Yes, we covet the land of this country. We covet, but not to rip off and take it away. We covet to be buried deep down this land.”
Yes, Ayşe coveted too! Not only this country, but every bit of land in the world. She coveted but not to possess… To live on it for some time. I covet even every square centimeter of land in the world… To walk on it, to have set foot on it.
Even though the contemporary political world order has turned it into this… The Earth is not a place to be parceled into countries and forbidden to people who themselves, their parents or spouses have not been born there or let in on conditions; it is a land as a whole, to be lived and traveled on for some time and then buried under.